On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> wrote: >> ASDF is not going to hard code an >> exception for your library. > > Closer to MOP already existed before asdf imposed anything on version > numbers, so asdf has to provide a way to define exceptions for such cases. > The versioning scheme of Closer to MOP was ad hoc, because nothing existed > that could have been adhered to. It must be possible for libraries to move > from non-adhering to adhering in a smooth way. Frankly, I don't care how > that's achieved. If I can solve this by adding something to the system > definition, that's fine with me... > Did your library exist on 20/02/2002? Because that's when version-satisfies appeared with its ldo.so-like versioning semantics.
To go back to actually looking for a solution (which I understand you don't care for), we could either have subclasses of system with different methods on version-satisfies, or we could have a :version-satisfies slot in system, that defaults to one of 'version-compatible-p or 'version<= (for the old and new behavior respectively), and asdf itself would specify the current version<= behavior for itself if it isn't the default. Note however that using either :class system-using-version<= or :version-satisfies version<= is not itself backward-compatible with old versions of ASDF, and so will have be protected with #+asdf3.1 or some such. Personally, I wouldn't go through that trouble, and would stick to the current lexicographic-only version comparison, because I think the ld.so semantics don't really apply to source compatibility. But doing something is Robert's prerogative now. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Everyone hates a martyr. It's no wonder martyrs were burnt at a stake. — E.W. Howe, "Country Town Sayings", p.7
